Health & Wellness

In a stunning rebuke of the Environmental Protection Agency, a federal court on Wednesday overturned the agency's approval of popular dicamba-based herbicides made by chemical giants Bayer, BASF and Corteva Agrisciences. The ruling effectively makes it illegal for farmers to continue to use the product.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the EPA "substantially understated the risks" of the dicamba herbicides and "failed entirely to acknowledge other risks."

"The EPA made multiple errors in granting the conditional registrations," the court ruling states.

One or more Members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Suggest Process Lacks Scientific Integrity and Rigor

The Nutrition Coalition, a group that aims to bring rigorous science to nutrition policy, today released a letter detailing allegations suggesting there is a serious threat to the integrity and trustworthiness of our nation's federal nutrition policy. The allegations were made by one or more members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a powerful group of experts under the direction of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services (USDA-HHS). The letter expresses concerns about the Committee's process and in particular, its review of the scientific studies underpinning what will be the next iteration of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), due out at the end of this year. In light of these revelations, the Nutrition Coalition is calling for the expert report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to be delayed to ensure adequate time for a thorough investigation of these allegations.

"The American people deserve trustworthy nutrition policy based on a comprehensive review of the most rigorous science, especially during this public health crisis when diet-related chronic diseases are among the leading risk factors for worsened outcomes from Covid-19,"stated Nina Teicholz, Executive Director of the Nutrition Coalition."These allegations range from deleting scientific reviews without public notice to failing to adopt reforms mandated by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). The NASEM identified numerous ways that the DGA needs to be reformed in order to ensure a scientifically rigorous process and, in their words, for this policy to be 'trustworthy.'"

People who avoid meat consumption tend to have worse psychological health than those who eat meat, according to new research published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. The study, which did not draw any conclusions about causation, found that vegetarians/vegans were at a greater risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm.

"Dietary choices have been a powerful indicator of social class and subsequent mate selection (e.g., whom we marry) since antiquity. Consequently, 'what we eat' and 'how we eat' are integral parts of our identity and directly influence our health via physiological, social, and psychological pathways," explained study author Urska Dobersek, an assistant professor at the University of Southern Indiana.

"Therefore, given the dramatic surge in veganism and mental illness over the past two decades, a rigorous systematic review was a necessary first step in examining the relations between meat and mental health."

Comment: Whether vegan and vegetarian diets cause mental health issues (likely) or people with mental issues tend towards vegetarian and vegan diets, the message is rather clear: Abstaining from meat is for crazy people.

The coronavirus has added a brutal exclamation point to America's pervasive ill health. Americans with obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other diet-related diseases are about three times more likely to suffer worsened outcomes from Covid-19, including death. Had we flattened the still-rising curves of these conditions, it's quite possible that our fight against the virus would today look very different.

To combat this and future pandemics, we need to talk about not only the masks that go over our mouths but the food that goes into them. Next month, an expert committee will issue its advisory report on the federal government's official dietary guidelines for the next five years. First published in 1980, the guidelines are meant to encourage healthy eating, but they have self-evidently failed to stem the ever-rising rates of obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases in the U.S.

Comment: It really isn't that complicated. Those with underlying health conditions are more likely to die from any virulent viral or bacterial infection. Getting people onto a healthy diet is the best way to both decrease underlying health concerns and protect them from acute disease. If people realized this, and started taking proactive measures towards their own health, much of the fear around the coronavirus would be mitigated considerably.

It seems that much of the narrative about the coronavirus has stuck with us since the beginning, but lately many mainstream media channels, politicians and governing bodies are putting out information that actually seems... truthful?

Admitting the virus is no more deadly than the flu, saying there's no evidence it can be spread from surfaces (like your groceries), revealing the unliklihood of anyone becoming reinfected and even (gasp!) that the lockdowns did NOT work to slow the virus transmission. It's almost as if the mainstream media have been reading Sott.net!

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we look at the slow trickle of truth making its way into the daily headlines. Are people finally going to realize the epic virus that forced them to into their homes, made them lose their jobs and kept them from their loved ones was a total nothingburger?

A COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory for all New Yorkers except those whose doctors exempt them, the Health Law Section of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) recommends in a report issued today.

The report also calls on the state Department of Health (DOH) to adopt uniform standards for allocation of ventilators and personal protective equipment. These standards would be triggered whenever there are insufficient medical supplies, ICU beds or trained health care workers to meet the needs of all patients.

The report recommendations will be debated at a virtual meeting of the association's governing body, the House of Delegates, on June 13.

As a child, Cathryn Nagler broke out in hives when she ate eggs. She reacted to penicillin. Working in labs after college, she developed a severe allergy to mice that caused wheezing, swelling and trouble breathing — twice landing her in the emergency room.

Today, Nagler is an immunologist the University of Chicago and is helping to pioneer an emerging research field: studying how bacteria in the gut can be harnessed to help people with food allergies.

It wasn't personal experience with allergies that inspired her interest. Rather, it was an odd observation she made as a doctoral student in the 1980s. She was studying mice whose immune systems go haywire and attack the collagen protein inside their joints, causing severe arthritis. Scientists could jump-start the disease by administering a shot of collagen under the skin. But, curiously, when Nagler later fed the creatures collagen using a tube that snaked down into their stomachs, it had the opposite effect: The mice got better.

The debate over the morality and practicality of forced vaccinations has been raging for many years, long before the coronavirus ever hit the US population. With the advent of the pandemic the narrative has shifted to one of "necessity". The media and the majority of governments around the world now act as if mass vaccinations are a given; the "debate is over", as collectivists like to say when they are tired of having to deal with any logical or factual complaints.

In the case of the novel coronavirus there is no vaccine yet; unless of course the virus was engineered or evolved in a lab (as more and more evidence is suggesting), and then perhaps there is one already developed. Typically, vaccines take years to test and produce, and whenever a vaccine is rushed onto the market very bad things tend to happen.

The vaccine debate often revolves around the issue of safety. Is a particular inoculation safe or poisonous? Does it have long term effects that are dangerous? Does it harm children with highly sensitive and underdeveloped body systems? These are valid concerns, but ultimately the fight over vaccines has less to do with medical safety or effectiveness and more to do with individual rights vs government demands.

In other words, the more important questions are: Should social engineering by governments and elites be allowed? Do people have the right to determine how their bodies are medically augmented or manipulated? Does the "security of the majority" take precedence over the civil liberties of the individual? And if so, who gets to determine what freedoms will be taken away?

A New Zealand website is advising people with symptoms of coronavirus to drink or inhale a bleach product sold by the Hauraki Plains-based "bishop" of a cult-like American organisation.

But experts warn that the product - chlorine dioxide - is dangerous, should not be taken, and will not cure Covid-19.

Ngatea man Roger Blake, who sells the bleach through his online business NZ Water Purifier Limited, is a 'bishop' of the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing.

The 'church' originated in Florida and is not religious. Its sole function is to promote the use of the bleach formula that it calls Miracle Mineral Supplement, or MMS, which its followers also sell. (To become a 'bishop' of the church, one can download a $320 video course, and must provide two video testimonials of people who have been 'treated' with MMS.)

May 22 was a banner day for the encroaching global vaccine police state, with three announcements from the UK signaling what we can surely also expect on this side of the Atlantic. First, the entities rushing to develop an experimental chimpanzee-derived COVID-19 injection — the conflict-of-interest-ridden Oxford Vaccine Group, Oxford's Jenner Institute and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca — announced the imminent expansion of their clinical trials to a wider age range, including children aged 5 to 12 years, despite "troubling results" when they administered the vaccine to rhesus monkeys. Endorsing the scale-up of the experiment to more than 30,000 eventual participants, including a trial to evaluate the vaccine in young children, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) immediately awarded a generous "$1.2 billion cash injection" for the UK effort (provided without any input from economically strapped American taxpayers). Then, to cap the day off, a UK Court of Appeal ominously ruled that local authorities can vaccinate children in foster care against their parents' wishes, deploying the argument that "it is in the best interests of children to be immunized unless there is a specific reason for them not to be."

Anyone who has been paying a modicum of attention knows where the vaccine cartel wants this to end up — with a mandated injection that will sneak high-risk gene-altering nanoparticles, Trojan-horse-style, into our children, and eventually, into all of us. However, the use of children as a wedge to implement mandates for adults — the age group most affected by COVID-19 — would deny children the equal protection of law because the vaccine will not be primarily for their benefit.